The ayes have it

Thus it has always been .....

Perhaps not directly, Loopylou. Might have said 'we'll talk about this again'...much the same. Not meant nastily...

You'd think the head of the Armed Forces and government advisors would know a great deal more but you also have to consider that the armed forces need conflict to justify their existence and ditto government advisors. And didn't we rely on both those groups when Blair told us we had to go into Iraq, and hasn't that advice been proven not quite so reliable? And weren't there vested interest groups ie weapons suppliers etc., who profited significanctly from all our previous armed involvements?

The thought of bombing makes me feel very uneasy but after what's happened to the holiday makers in Tunisia, the Paris massacres, the videos of beheadings, the atrocities against totally innocent people then hopefully bombing will do something. Yes, I know innocent people will be killed, but their own people in IS don't give a damn about them; IS have no respect for anyone.

What's the alternative? Sit back and wait for them to blow us up too?

Clearly the heads of the Armed Forces and government advisors know a great deal more about how to fight terrorism than you or I. Therefore to me is seems the right decision has been made.

I wasn't aware we were ^ having a chat^
If there's a credible alternative then i'm pretty certain that we'd have heard about it!

Having doubts about whether the bombing is wise does not imply thatmollie should have the answer to the problem. I do not think anyone has the answer, but many feel that bombing is not it.

Well, whatever it is, it's not bombing. Now we've given more ammo/justification to some crackpot here to set off another suicide bomb ... when that happens we'll have another chat, Loopylou.

So what is the answer then mollie? You clearly have ideas.

Didn't take them long to launch the bombs. And what good has it done? Can they honestly say? And how many more will they launch? Bombs are not the answer...

Indeed.